Video: Sheik beats, rapes, and runs over migrant. But is acquitted.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
I'm not sure how islam fits into this other than that the parties were probably muslim. The US is 80% Christian and we have a whole shitload of crime committed by Christians including theft, assault, rape, torture, and murder. But it's just the usual suspects making noise here as usual.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
I'm not sure how islam fits into this other than that the parties were probably muslim. The US is 80% Christian and we have a whole shitload of crime committed by Christians including theft, assault, rape, torture, and murder. But it's just the usual suspects making noise here as usual.

The difference is they would be convicted here
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
The difference is they would be convicted here

That's about power, not religion. It's more like a white not getting convicted of attacking a black in the old south than anything to do with the attacker, judge and jury saying they are Christians.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
interesting this just cam across the news...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100111/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_shooting_trial

"But what had been expected to be an open-and-shut murder trial was upended Friday when a judge decided to let Roeder argue he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter because he believed the May 31 slaying would save unborn children. "

I don't like the law but it seems to support the judge's ruling on the surface. It says 'a wrong but honest belief the killig was justified'.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
I don't like the law but it seems to support the judge's ruling on the surface. It says 'a wrong but honest belief the killig was justified'.

This would open an unbelievable can of warms.

A democrat pulls over a car with a republican bumper sticker and shoots him dead, manslaughter because he thought the contribution to electing a republican president would result in American soldiers lives being lost due to a unjustifiable war or whatever.

Similiar situation but the republican kills the democrat because his vote could contribute to prolong roe vs. wade, or bad healthcare, or whatever shit you want to make up.

The idea of extending "wrong but honest believe that the killing was justified" has never been attempted as far as I know, and would just be a complete disaster. This judge should be disbarred, it's despicable.

Sorry for the derail but that article just blew me away.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
That's about power, not religion. It's more like a white not getting convicted of attacking a black in the old south than anything to do with the attacker, judge and jury saying they are Christians.

No the basis is religion, arab and Muslim supremicism taught in the koran totally infesting those cultures. Just like the old whites who relegated blacks to second class status due to mark of Cain found in Bible.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
This would open an unbelievable can of warms.

A democrat pulls over a car with a republican bumper sticker and shoots him dead, manslaughter because he thought the contribution to electing a republican president would result in American soldiers lives being lost due to a unjustifiable war or whatever.

Similiar situation but the republican kills the democrat because his vote could contribute to prolong roe vs. wade, or bad healthcare, or whatever shit you want to make up.

The idea of extending "wrong but honest believe that the killing was justified" has never been attempted as far as I know, and would just be a complete disaster. This judge should be disbarred, it's despicable.

Sorry for the derail but that article just blew me away.

We can all agree with the problem, but it doesn't change that the law says what it says.

Is it a good idea for the public demand judges ignore unpopular laws?

Why attack the judge in this case rather than the law? If there's some legal background why the judge is wrong, fine, but for now the law appears to say what he ruled.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
No the basis is religion, arab and Muslim supremicism taught in the koran totally infesting those cultures. Just like the old whites who relegated blacks to second class status due to mark of Cain found in Bible.

The basis in both was power, whether or not some religious text is used in the argument.

Besides, are many or most in the underclass Muslims too? With Americans treated better?

You don't see Muslims everywhere doing this, You see it where the power structure support it.

You seem to be exhibinting a predetermination/determination to say it's all about religion and not caring about the real situation.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
The basis in both was power, whether or not some religious text is used in the argument.

Besides, are many or most in the underclass Muslims too? With Americans treated better?

You don't see Muslims everywhere doing this, You see it where the power structure support it.

You seem to be exhibinting a predetermination/determination to say it's all about religion and not caring about the real situation.

So if god who you believe in with all your heart and soul tells you blacks are tainted or don't take Christians or Jews as friends, etc you don't think that has a serious anthropological factor effecting mores tenants and atmospherics of believers? Sorry Craig that's just crazy.

Not to mention second class status of religious minorities and women is instituted in all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence which is law.
 
Last edited:

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
News Story:
Christian beats, tars, burns woman at stake because she's a witch.

I miss the good ole days when all you needed was a heavy duck or a broken scale.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
So if god who you believe in with all your heart and soul tells you blacks are tainted or don't take Christians or Jews as friends, etc you don't think that has a serious anthropological factor effecting mores tenants and atmospherics of believers? Sorry Craig that's just crazy.

Not to mention second class status of religious minorities and women is instituted in all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence which is law.

Isn't it funny how that 'passionate religious view' existed before and has entirely disappeared as the power structure between whites and blacks has changed? Clearly it's religiously driven.

You aren't even paying attention to what I post. Aren't these underclass often Muslim, and aren't the westerners who aren't Muslim treated far better? That's the opposite of your theory.

It seems to me you have your mind made up and are ignoring the facts, and can't tell the difference betwee power and religion, between religion as an excuse and a cause.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
We can all agree with the problem, but it doesn't change that the law says what it says.

Is it a good idea for the public demand judges ignore unpopular laws?

Why attack the judge in this case rather than the law? If there's some legal background why the judge is wrong, fine, but for now the law appears to say what he ruled.

The legal background is that the judge can't apply some charge willy nilly. The prosecutor applies the charge, and then has the burdon of proof to convict the defendant on that charge. The judge can't just say well actually the jury will also be able to rule on Voluntary manslaughter in lieu of the prosecutor's charge. If article is correct in assuming that the Judge will allow the Jury to consider VM it is insane.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
The legal background is that the judge can't apply some charge willy nilly. The prosecutor applies the charge, and then has the burdon of proof to convict the defendant on that charge. The judge can't just say well actually the jury will also be able to rule on Voluntary manslaughter in lieu of the prosecutor's charge. If article is correct in assuming that the Judge will allow the Jury to consider VM it is insane.

I'm not that familiar with with the judge can and cannot permit a lesser charge to be argued. Sometimes it's allowed, sometimes it's not; if you can prove the rules and that it's 'crazy', go ahead.

It seems to come down to guessing what 'honestly believing' the murder was justified means. It seems to me it's a badly written law, that they might have THOUGHT it meant imminent threat but didn't write that.

How is it not the case this defendant wrongly but honestly thought the murder was justified, as opposed to most murdered for motives not about it being 'justified'? They should fix the law after this.